Application of the dry needle method in the correction of myofascial pain in women after caesarean section and myomectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myofascial pain after uterine surgery, in particular caesarean section and myomectomy, is a common problem that significantly reduces the quality of life of women in the postoperative period. Traditional methods of treatment do not always demonstrate high efficiency, which necessitates the search for alternative approaches to pain relief, one of which is the dry needle method. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the dry needle method in the correction of myofascial pain in women after caesarean section and myomectomy in comparison with standard methods of treatment. The prospective randomised controlled trial involved 12 women (aged 25-45 years) who underwent caesarean section (n = 8) or myomectomy (n = 4). The patients were divided into a treatment group (n = 6), which received dry needling in addition to standard therapy, and a control group (n = 6), which received standard therapy alone. The pain intensity was assessed using a visual analogue scale, McGill questionnaire, quality of life (sf-36), anxiety and depression levels using the HADS scale were studied before treatment, 7, 14, 30 and 90 days after treatment. Patients in the main group showed a significant decrease in pain intensity by 45.8% after 7 days and 78.3% after 30 days of treatment, compared to the control group – 23.2% and 56.1%, respectively (p < 0.01). The sf-36 quality of life scores in the intervention group were 32.5% higher after 30 days and 41.2% higher after 90 days compared to the control group (p < 0.01). The level of anxiety and depression according to the HADS scale decreased by 38.7% and 42.3%, respectively, in the main group compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The use of the dry needle method in the complex treatment of myofascial pain in women after cesarean section and myomectomy demonstrates high efficiency in reducing pain intensity, improving the quality of life and psycho-emotional state of patients compared to standard methods of treatment. The method can be recommended as an additional therapeutic approach in such patients
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".